Thursday, May 05, 2016

The main objective of the English authorities was to exonerate the parents of Madeleine McCann

Short debate on the news that Scotland Yard is allegedly following a lead that presumes that Madeleine McCann was abducted by three Portuguese men. Rua Segura is a daily TV show broadcast by CMTV where criminal current issues are debated and analysed. On this episode the program had as guests Carlos Anjos, former PJ inspector and former head of the Criminal Investigation Officers' Union and André Ventura, University Law Professor & book author.

Carlos Anjos: 'I believe that there is clearly an attempt to exonerate the couple'

Transcript

Anchor Sara Carrilho - The thesis of abduction of Madeleine McCann by three Portuguese men is back on the table for the British authorities. The Judiciary Police however does not believe in that hypothesis which was already investigated two years ago.

Voice Over Joana Sales (news segment) - It's the last line of investigation concerning Maddie's disappearance. If it doesn't produce any results Scotland Yard will close the case nine (sic, 5) years after it started. The thesis of this new investigation is unknown, but English police sources believe that the possibility that the little 3-year-old girl was abducted during a burglary deserves a fresh look. This hypothesis surfaced in 2014. The Portuguese police constituted at the time three men as arguidos (suspects), José Carlos da Silva, 30 years old (sic, 39), Ricardo Rodrigues, 24 years old, and Paulo Ribeiro, 53 years old. One of the suspects worked at the Ocean Club resort where the McCann family were staying. He was in charge of accompanying the clients up to the apartments in Praia da Luz. The British police believes that this man together with the other two suspects assaulted the McCanns' apartment and upon seeing the little girl decided to take her. The English police suspicions have as basis phone calls records between the three men on that night. The Portuguese police provided at the time the information requested but considers that there are no indicia to incriminate the three suspects. Scotland Yard will carry on with the investigation, as was recently advanced, until they close it in a few months time whether they have conclusions about Madeleine McCann's disappearance or not.

Anchor Sara Carrilho - Carlos, do you think it makes any sense for the English authorities to question these three Portuguese men again, or return to this abduction thesis?

Carlos Anjos - No, nothing makes sense anymore. I would say, from the day the process was reopened or since when the English authorities reopened the case in England and started to investigate, it has never made any sense. It would make some sense if the English authorities had read the Portuguese process and said that there were failures, and then followed alternative lines of investigation. All they did do, what they have limited themselves to, was merely to follow or repeat what was done by the Portuguese, several times. In fact, they are now redoing what they themselves had done, they've already done this step.

Carlos Anjos - It has been a series of blunders, even from the point of view.. A few years later they were searching the sewers to see if the girl was still there, if the body had been there the sewers would have blocked and would have likely burst, with all that rained down in Portugal in the past winters there would be no hypothesis. What they have done, from an investigative standpoint, not only was badly done, we cannot also see a line (methodology). Now they want to pursue a thesis of abduction, which is something... They want to talk with three people, it should be said that of these three I can almost guess who they are going to try pin the blame on for the abduction - on the one that died. Of the three men there's one that has already died, and that is always the weakest link since he's not here to defend himself. These Portuguese have been very helpful, even the suspects, because they've always talked to the English. That is, whenever the English want to speak with them, they have accepted to answer their questions and to give them statements. Because they could clam up, they could refuse with the status of arguidos to give any statements. Actually, they are not arguidos1 because the English don't have the capacity for that. There is a curious fact, the only suspect that was an arguido, Robert Murat, who right or wrong was considered initially as the main suspect, the English discarded him immediately, maybe because he is also English, but that one didn't matter for this scenario. We couldn't see a line of reasoning in there.

I believe this process is going to end very soon, after they make this new onslaught in Portugal. They've spent a lot of money, it's one of the most expensive cases in English investigation history. Strangely enough, numerous children disappear in England yet they don't give them any special care, but they have that with Madeleine McCann.

I would applaud them if I saw an investigation done in different way, and if I saw them taking steps that we hadn't taken, if we had failed it would be necessary to do them, and I do think that we failed, this was already said in here, Rui Pereira said that and Manuel (Rodrigues)2 also, that one of the serious errors was not constituting the McCann couple and their friends as arguidos for the abandonment of their children. There were mistakes in the investigation but those errors were repaired. Now, the English have never brought anything new to the investigation, absolutely nothing at all. And we are here today - if people notice, Portugal followed several lines - we don't know of the English investigation a single lead that was different, a single line of investigation that was different, or that it had produced a different type of results.

This is gearing up for one thing, the English, Scotland Yard will end up arranging a report that says that they have eliminated for good the possibility of the child dying in that house, in that night - and I'm not saying that it was homicide, negligent or not - and that what happened was an abduction. They're not going to say much more than that because they don't have any factual basis to affirm that it was an abduction. But they are going to say it. And why? Because this investigation since it started, from the English side, and from the point the dogs came to Portugal, the dogs that detected cadaver scent which lead to a different line of investigation, those English (officers) were replaced because it was of no interest (unhelpful), the thesis wasn't the one the UK wanted and what they want is a thesis that says: 'No, what happened was an abduction and the McCann couple is once and for all exonerated".

Curiously, we heard the process was going to be archived, and I am convinced, it's my personal opinion, that this process wasn't archived now because the Portuguese court decided in favour of Gonçalo Amaral. Since the decision was favourable for Gonçalo Amaral, and the McCanns are very embittered with that decision because they felt that it was unfair - I'm not saying that it was or not, this is just an observation - the English police, at a time when everything pointed to the archival of the case for lack of evidence - there was even a news article on Correio da Manhã and in other newspapers - decided to start new investigations upon the decision of the Portuguese courts. I believe that there is clearly an attempt to exonerate the couple, the English want to remove any suspicion from the McCann couple. In my opinion, it was never their main goal to find Madeleine McCann. The main objective of the English authorities was to exonerate the parents of Madeleine McCann. More Joana Morais

With the dam bursting in Portugal it will be more important than ever for SY to contain the damage.

I suspect the moment GA's book is available in English, SY will name their [dead] suspects, declare it impossible to prosecute,[not that they could anyway] and hope the sensational news is enough to overwhelm the flood of information coming out of The Truth of the Lie.

"I suspect the moment GA's book is available in English, SY will name their [dead] suspects" etc.

If not before even.

Like those left aboard the Titanic, clinging to the elevated stern section ('It's only the front end that's sunk - this one won't, will it?'), believers in the PJ's determination to 'seek justice' will keep hope alive, even in the face of the facts telling them otherwise. (I seem to recall a comment somewhere to the effect that the PJ never did re-open the case in order to resolve the original investigation, but as an administrative requirement, in order legally to enable their accommodation of SY's nefarious intentions).

I'm unlikely now to have more than a decade or two left on the planet, but I'm thinking of putting in for an extension, just so as I can see what 'history' reveals in future.

You're so right. You just cant tell 'em. Sometimes the 'boy scout' just takes over and they go prepared for anything, like taking coals to Newcastle. (The shovel was no doubt in case they got snowed in!).

Where the answerphone message announces: "This is Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Commissioner" and, after pointing out to DCS Mick Duthie's 'staff officer' that a cadaver dog's prior behaviour in PdL appears a tad inconsistent with DCS Duthie's optimism about finding Madeleine McCann alive, refers said staff officer to his own documentary footage, at madeleinefilms.net

He's no old friend of mine (lol) although I believe 'Himself' would have a position on that class of acquaintance. 'tis he who will have spoken of the man previously no doubt. (That is not to say, of course, that I disagree with him).

Asked if he had any regrets about the Express coverage Desmond said: “Do I regret? Er, no, I think we reported it very fairly.”

He added: “You don’t know what happened. The McCanns had a PR company to start with that wanted [the story] to be on the front page.

“To cut to the chase, when I was at Andrew Lloyd Webber’s programme on Stephen Ward, Bill Kenwright [the Everton Football Club chairman who pledged money to help the McCanns] comes up to me and he says Gerry and – what’s her name, Gerry and the wife? – Kate McCann send their best regards to you and are so thankful to you for keeping that story on the front page.”

He added: “Every other newspaper and every other news station covered it in the same way.”

Intriguing. Especially his claims about secret societies etc. not being a part of American history.

One third (13) of the 39 signatories to the original constitution were Freemasons, George Washington going on to become a prominent and internationally respected member of the order.

Freemasonry (and other Eastern fraternal practices) migrated West with the pioneers, and very possibly had a role to play in that well-known little fracas in Tombstone, Arizona.

That said, I would be very surprised indeed if JFK did not know all that.

I would be inclined to 'read between the lines' therefore and suspect he was firing a warning shot across the bows of those much closer to home (i.e. the White House) and the military-political cabal that, together with the bankers, realised just what a killing, literally and metaphorically, could be made from sustaining US post-war aggression worldwide.

He didn’t do it by hiring a bunch of expensive equipment, hopping on a plane, and slaving away on an excavation site - he discovered the incredible ruins from the comfort of his own home, by figuring out that the ancient cities were built in alignment with the stars above.

"However, as I have said, this is not the element of the video that I find most interesting. What does interest me is what happens a few seconds later. Gerry appears to suddenly realise his laughter was a gaff & his expression changes to one that rather resembles a guilty schoolboy caught misbehaving. He even throws a quick sideways glance at the crowd before quickly averting his eyes & looking at the ground."

AOH - Just a very strange coincidence that I happened to wander into that topic while examining a completely different subject. I definitely think JFK's dismissal of 'secret societies' was what one might describe as a 'veiled reference'.

Oh, and never mind reading the details. This is the LIST of sources that has been buried. Enquiries won't even get past first base until the doors open.

From the team that brought you 'Saddam's 45 minute launch capability' and 'suicide by pen knife' there was the heart-rending tale of a child's abduction. Now, coming soon to a library nowhere near you, the long-awaited follow-up - a £12m production you won't get to see for a century either.

Comment L GYes, lets start by asking the "hard questions" to the head of operation grange! First question would be....why is it that under no circumstances can you question the McCann's and friends about their version of events the night little Madeleine disappeared? Their inconsistencies and lies are truly astounding, and yet you have never re-questioned any of them? As the UK taxpayers are paying for this 12 million plus (charade) investigation we have a right to know, where and how every penny of our money has been spent?

"...What does it matter if the research of this 15-year-old doesn’t lead to finding an ancient Maya city? I think this German-Mexican project could help the kid visit the place since there was some talk about insurmountable financing needed which they were able to accumulate. Or maybe share some photos they took while “ground truthing”? No matter what the place is, the kid’s research was absolutely superb, and I think his curiosity will take him far."

The views of Mrs 'W' are entirely reasonable. A 'limited hangout' as she explains would be what the phrase suggests - limited in both scope and 'knock-on' effect.

'Ground truthing' would appear to be a neologism appropriate to describing 'pie in the sky', but from the opposite perspective!

The idea that the young investigator should be rewarded for his interest and application reminds me of the distinction between continuous assessment vs. examination - you get marks for effort, even though, if the questions were put directly, you'd probably come up with the wrong answer.

That said, the fellow would no doubt be receptive to (and therefore benefit from) professional guidance as the comment suggests.

The story also speaks to 'research' in the wider sense.

Every generation that addresses a topic for the first time has the potential to discover something new. The question is, however, is it absolutely new, or simply new to them?

The requirement of fundamental understanding is the same whether one is looking for a Mayan city or Madeleine McCann. Operation Grange may have read 'Volume II', but it has studiously ignored 'Volume I'.

Hey! I came over to see what's cooking and what do I find? People talking about me behind my back! But in a good way obviously so thanks for the complimentary assessment of my assessment.

I could be wrong about a limited hangout in the offing, but I don't know how else to explain the shift in media coverage, even down to The Sun taking comments---and leaving them up even though they are heavily anti-McCann lies.

I am keen to see what happens over the next few months and I hope it doesn't involve any cemeteries.

'..as Kate launched her book, Madeleine, in 2011, Gerry said: “Blaming us takes it away from the abductor. Someone stole a child. Of course we feel guilt. But it doesn’t bring the child back. So we tried to take control of things you can influence, to help the search.”'

So 'someone stole a child' (it happens every day). But 'it doesn't bring the child back' (which one? Is he talking about his/her/their daughter by any chance?)

“That same day, 22 July [2007], the Sunday Express ran the headline: ‘MADDY’S PARENTS TO FACE INQUIRY’. For ‘neglect’, according to the newspaper. By now we were no strangers to this line of attack, but it was still incredibly hurtful as it blamed us, indirectly, for Madeleine’s abduction. We were not hurt so much by what people might or might not think of us but by the painful reminder that, however unwittingly, we’d given this predator an opportunity. We had not been there for Madeleine. And, as I’ve said before and will say again, our guilt over that is a heavy cross we will bear for the rest of our lives. As for the abductor, he must have been smiling smugly to himself and thinking, Keep blaming the parents. Just leave me out of it, hidden and anonymous, to carry on doing what I do – stealing children.

Had everyone forgotten about this man? Whoever he was, he was still out there.”

Whoever he(!) was, Kate seems to know him quite well. M

22 July 2007

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id209.html

“Gerry spends the whole day travelling from the Algarve to Washington, USA with their Campaign Manager. They take a Virgin plane with the tickets donated by Richard Branson.

Gerry is upset by a headline in a British newspaper suggesting that they face prosecution for leaving their children unattended.”

I posted this on Candyfloss forum MMM and would like either or both of your opions on the way neglect will develope if at all

think of this ....while everyone is shouting neglect and fingerpointing (and they are!!) Who is quietly asking what really happened. And if it was a choice of neglect or Occultation of body etc etc then it makes perfect sense to go this route....it closes down everything for minimal cost.... there is no argument against it imo ....it is the path of least resistance. The best of the worst.....we get to throw mud at negligent parents they waltz off unscathed.....genius

It's not like OG can run a focus group or two to get a feel for which end-game will play out most successfully. Still, it's not beyond the realms of possibility, I suppose, that they might 'test the water' somehow.

That said, can it really be viewed as a case of neglect versus occultation of a body? It's all very well for Clarence Mitchell to regurgitate GM's 'find the body and prove..(whatever)' statement, but there is already undeniable proof a body is missing! So who moved it?

Either the child was abducted (alive) or she was not abducted and is therefore dead, in which case the parents know the circumstances.

Basically 'neglect' has to be accompanied by 'abduction' to function as an explanation for the child's disappearance. (One wonders how big a 'bung' might be required for the family of an already deceased burglar to accept that their relative could have done such a thing?)

'POLICE in Portugal piled fresh torment on Madeleine McCann’s parents yesterday by claiming SIX other kids were with her the night she disappeared.'

'The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell scoffed at the cops’ new allegations, saying: “If you put seven children together you are going to have a far harder time getting them to sleep than three.”'

This was October 2007. Only Mitchell's statement is a direct quote.

The hypothesis that the T9 organised their own night-time crèche belonged to Paulo Rebelo, who replaced GA as co-ordinator. Importantly the 'leak' refers to SEVEN children being cared for together when EIGHT went on the holiday.

Significantly Mitchell neither covers nor corrects what appears to be an error. Instead he reinforces it!

So, according to the Rebelo theory, a child was missing from the COMMENCEMENT of the group's child minding arrangement that week.

If they were 'missing' at night, then they would have been missing during the daytime also, which suggests that Madeleine McCann was, in effect, absent from the off, and that reports of her being witnessed thereafter by various members of the T9 (at tennis etc.) are in fact false.

Kate McCann: “Well, actually at nine thirty I stood up to go and check on Madeleine, cause it was my turn, and at the same time Matt our friend stood up, and we both started walking and he said I’m gonna go and check on Grace, they were the next apartment to us, he said I’ll check on Madeleine...”

The incessant speculation continued, however, including one report claiming that the McCanns and the three couples they were on holiday with left of their children sleeping in the McCann's apartment while they dined in a nearby tapas restaurant.

Portuguese newspaper 24 Horas reported, quoting a senior PJ officer as claiming: "It's not just the evidence gathered which point to the fact of there being more children in the apartment, there is also the evidence duly backed up after interrogation upon the rest of the people who were in the Ocean Club."

None of the McCann's friends were available for comment but Mr Mitchell dismissed the claims as "utter rubbish", saying only Madeleine and her two-year-old twin siblings Sean and Amelie slept there.

"If you put seven children together, you're going to have a far harder time getting them to sleep than three," he said.

I don't believe the other couples left their children sleeping in the McCanns' apartment. I just wonder why none of the McCanns' friends commented. Isn't it a marvellous opportunity to resolve miscommunication?

Given the subject matter perhaps we should consider 'moribund discussion' (I jest).

Picking up from Anonymous @09:19, I don't think it necessary to believe that the T9 children were all in one room or another on each and every occasion in order to imagine that sleeping/checking arrangements were not as advertised in retrospect. In fact we can be reasonably certain they were not.

Whatever the details, I take the view that there is no smoke without fire, hence coupling the PJ position at the time of the original 24 Horas article with Mitchell's avoidance tactic, strongly suggests (to me) that there was accommodation-sharing for one reason or another.

“We’re trying to reach that person who knows something, and there is somebody who knows something – not the person who’s taken Madeleine, but the person on the periphery, and that might just be a colleague of the person, a neighbour, a fam… you know this person, the abductor, has got a mother, a brother, a cousin, they’re part of a family…”

Who do we know with a mother, brother (sister?) and a cousin, who might be a neighbour of 'the person' (the abductor), while being on the periphery themselves?

(Answers on a postcard to DCI Nicola Wall, Metropolitan Police, at Scotland Yard)

'Addressing Mr Justice Eady, the McCann's solicitor-advocate Mr Adam Tudor said: "There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Mr and Mrs McCann were responsible for the death of their daughter or that they were involved in any sort of cover-up, and there was no basis for Express Newspapers to allege otherwise."'

An interesting statement made in court. Since abduction was, frankly, impossible, and people do not simply disappear into thin air, Tudor's observation leaves someone else 'holding the baby'.

'Brian Healy, Madeleine's maternal grandfather, told the Guardian his son-in-law had phoned him shortly after returning to the apartment from a nearby restaurant to find Madeleine had disappeared.'

Kate McCann (madeleine):

"The call I’d been putting off now had to be made. My mum and dad completely adore Madeleine and I just couldn’t bring myself to shatter their world. I dreaded to think what this would do to them. So, just after midnight, it was Gerry who had to tell them. Distraught, they rang friends and family who immediately rallied to their support."

'Just after midnight' then, i.e. 'shortly after returning'.

The call was in fact so dreadful that Gerry delayed making it until 10.00 a.m. the following morning!

From your link:“My daughter can hardly speak. She is distraught, she is crying and in shock." (Brian Healy)

Kate McCann (in ‘madeleine’):

“It was particularly hard to bear the distress of our parents. Witnessing our mums being torn apart was absolutely heartbreaking, as was the sight of my dad, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease, sobbing profusely, shaking violently, his condition exacerbated by his state of mind, and virtually collapsing on to the couch beside me. ‘I’m so sorry. I’ve let you down. I’m so sorry, so sorry,’ he kept repeating. Of course he hadn’t let me down. He just felt utterly helpless, like the rest of us. The fact that our parents have had to endure such an ordeal at this stage of their lives is a crime in itself.”

Carlos Anjos: 'I believe that there is clearly an attempt to exonerate the couple'

Back on topic then, here's one that clearly seems not to be listening:

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

"The Bureau is not brave enough to say more"

Or to facilitate comments in response.

I'll leave it to others to explain why the 'Wayback Machine' has clearly acceded to requests that the 30th April 2007 be erased from CEOP history. Who instructed them? Why was it thought necessary? Who gives a damn about inconsequential mistakes?

“We’ve never allowed comments, although that would have enabled us to get to know many of our thousand or two core readers better. We haven’t done so because of the unpleasant nature of internet comment – who wants to spend time moderating that? - and because we find interactive “internet debate” worthless and repulsive. We get messages, though, and read what others have to say, gradually allowing us to gain a feel for the sort of people who read us regularly.”

One of the comments:If only the Sun had the bottle to investigate and report the true facts about Maddys disappearance, instead of some of the rubbish they print. Even a blind man can see that the McCanns are as guilty as sin. Grow a pair Sun and expose the people at the top who are covering up the truth, then people might take your paper a bit more seriously.

"Civilian police staff from our Scientific Support Department including SOCOs provide scientific evidence to initiate or assist an investigation conducted by our police officer colleagues. SOCO's are the skilled scene examiners. They are the finders, recorders and collectors of forensic evidence. Their role also includes the crime scene photography and video."

Why, therefore, was the Coroner at Brenda Leyland's inquest unable to verify the 'scene' for herself, but had instead to ask LP's Sgt. Taylor: 'Did the scene mirror the instructions on the screen?'

We are not required to speculate as to the genuine cause of Brenda Leyland's death in order to establish that the inquest itself was seriously flawed.

Who first discovered the body? (It could not have been the police)

What items exactly were recorded as having been found in Brenda's hotel room? (Helium canisters, an i-pad, and what else? There should have been more apparatus and luggage sufficient to carry it)

What was the exact status of the items found? (What web-site EXACTLY was showing on the i-pad, which should have been in 'sleep' mode in any case? How much gas was left in each of the two helium canisters, i.e. their relative weight at the time?)

I would hazard a guess that despite suicide being a crime no SOCO was called to the scene and that there is no photographic record of the situation at the time. Ironically, last night I watched a 'true crime' show on TV discussing the murder of a young man who was first rendered unconscious by a cocktail of drugs, trussed up with cord, then asphyxiated with a plastic bag, leaving no signs of aggression (apart from the cord that is).

Thank you. I wonder why the staff member was not called to give evidence?

Anonymous @ 22:02

Thursday - Saturday. That's barely 48 hours. 'Worried for her safety' eh? I wonder why? She asked a neighbour to look after the cat for a couple of days, suggesting that she would be away from home. Why should that engender 'worry for her safety'?

I asked an i-pad owner this evening about 'waking up' a device that had been left unattended and become 'locked' as a result.

Unless one takes steps to override the automatic function, a password would be required to renew access to whatever was active prior to the shutdown. Instant regeneration of previous activity could only ensue if the device owner/operator had deliberately altered the control parameters so as to permit resumption without the need for a secure password.

We may never know whether Brenda had taken that step. If she hadn't, then the police must have been there almost while the act was in process in order to step straight back into BL's chosen web page, since her I-pad would have locked out after a few minutes' inactivity.

McCann and his wife Kate were handed £55,000 in libel damages from the Murdoch-owned paper over a front page story which alleged that the couple had deliberately hindered the search for their daughter, who went missing in Portugal seven years ago....

...A spokesman for the couple said newspaper articles helped feed into the abuse from trolls, who felt “vindicated” by them.

"McmlxiGood - it's about time the McCanns stopped taking everyone who disagrees with their version of events to court! They don't like the massive holes in their 'story' exposed."

"RuthEHIt very much appears that the UK government has continuously protected the McCanns? Why?"

"The Cobbler1. The book only theorizes the "facts" that were presented in the original investigations interim report and are freely available to the public..So they should have pursued the police in the courts. But that would have entailed challenging the evidence in a court of law..2. They originally claimed the book's content damaged the search for the child. However the parents WAITED for a year so they could go after the royalties. 3. Whatever cynics might argue and experts might say, had this decision not being reversed by a discerning court of appeal – as it was the case last time – allowing two neglecting parents, first to walk out of the country scot-free and then, years later, come back to be awarded half a million Euro in compensation would have set a serious and sinister precedent."

"MartEconnWhen Theresa May is involved you know something stinks.

The McCanns should have been arrested for neglecting their children for a start. If you dont want to be with your kids on holiday, don't bloody take them.

A trained dog detected death in that apartment, this dog brought from the US detected death in the kid's bedroom and downstairs behind a sofa where blood was found.

The dog had helped solve 200 cases in the US so it had form.

Where did that minifridge go from the apartment, and why did Gerry have an empty file in the sex offender system

What is scary is the UK gov and police always tried to protect the McCanns from day one."

"scepticism50I believe the dog."

"MaximusSo do I, cadaver dogs have no reason to lie. And yet when confronted with this Gerry told the reporter to 'ask the dog'. I would have asked if the previous tenant had passed away or whether the person who had hired the same car had died at the wheel? Everyone can sense that something doesn't stack up in this case but for some reason we can't put our finger on what. I the absence of mortal remains we are left with a set of stories. I hope the truth comes out eventually for the sake of Maddie."

Why the extra gas canister standing on the floor? From the user's naïve perspective, if one were not sufficient, would a second be any more effective after an (unconscious) interval of time?

If the purpose of two canisters was to guarantee a lethal volume of gas, then they should have been 't'd' together by a tube - obviously not the case with one on the floor and the other on the bed.

If a scenes of crime officer was not called to the hotel, then, besides the coroner being denied a photographic record of the situation, there will have been no confirmation that Brenda Leyland's fingerprints were actually on either canister - especially the one found on the floor.

What with the Toxicologist claiming there was no test for helium in the UK, it seems we have a coroner keen to come to a swift conclusion and based entirely upon assumptions of one sort or another.

"The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary and others have always been clear that they very much support the work that the British police authorities are doing in this and are always prepared to consider whether there is more that can be done and, as part of that, always stand by to make further representations to the Portuguese government for example if that would be helpful.

"Investigations are rightly for police authorities but If there is more that the Government can do to help facilitate, we would certainly consider that and look to do as much as we could to help."

"We really need to identify the offender, to bring to a close the trauma and the tragedy that these families have suffered, and then seek to establish whether this is connected to Madeleine's disappearance." - AR

You couldn't make it up, but they know what they want to do and they are ready to go with that.

"Sergeant Kevin Taylor may have been the first officer on the scene but he didn’t find the body."

Nor was he the first 'officer' on the scene. On his own admission to the inquest a police woman preceded him (A police 'officer' in common UK parlance does not necessarily denote rank, e.g. sergeant and above, but simply confers an 'official' aspect. The term 'officer on duty', for instance, may be coined with reference to a police constable).

As the first individual on the scene in any official capacity, she should have been called to give evidence.

'The Coroner will often sit alone to hear an inquest, but there are certain circumstances (as defined by section 7 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) which place a requirement upon the Coroner to summon a jury to hear an inquest case':

Included among said circumstances are those where

The death was unnaturalThe death was sudden or unexpected

Note the 'requirement upon the Coroner to summon a jury'

'Unlawful killing conclusions

'Coroners apply the same standard of proof ('beyond reasonable doubt') when considering an unlawful killing conclusion.'

Is the standard of proof for suicide any different?

The coroner in the case of Brenda Leyland sat alone. Whatever Brenda died from it was not 'natural causes'. Her death was also 'sudden and unexpected'.

And yet the coroner neglected to meet the legal requirement that she summon a jury. Was this inquest lawful even?

The coroner decides who should be called to give evidence as a witness and the order in which they give evidence. If you believe that you have evidence, or that a particular witness should be called, you should, if possible, inform the coroner well before the hearing date. The coroner will then decide whether the evidence is relevant to the investigation.’

I guess the simple answer might be that she called those whose names were attached to police reports already in her possession. It would be of considerable interest to discover exactly what information (evidence) she was provided with prior to the inquest.

"8.10 Is there always a jury at an inquest?No, most inquests are held without a jury, but there are particular circumstances when the law states a jury must be called, including:• if the death occurred in prison, in police custody or another type of state detention (except if the death was from natural causes); or• if the death resulted from an accident at work

This is not, of course, a complete list of those 'particular circumstances when the law states a jury MUST BE CALLED' Among those missing is 'death by unnatural causes'.

There can be no mistake. The coroner responsible for the Leyland inquest flouted the law!

The Coroner will often sit alone to hear an inquest, but there are certain circumstances (as defined by section 7 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) which place a requirement upon the Coroner to summon a jury to hear an inquest case:

'In every jury inquest the coroner decides matters of law and procedure and the jury decides the facts of the case and comes to a conclusion which mustinclude the legal ‘determination’ and ‘findings’ (see Glossary), includingthe cause of death. Like the coroner, the jury cannot blame someone forthe death. If there is any blame, this can only be established by other legal proceedings in the civil or criminal courts. However, the jury can state facts which make it clear that the death was caused by a specific failure of some sort or by neglect.'

Quite apart from 'stating facts' jury members are allowed to ask questions, except they have to be present in order to do so.

I confess, this is an aspect of the affair I have only just woken up to, but a question that needs to be asked is WHY Mrs Mason took it upon herself to hear the case alone, when it is quite clear that the law required her to summon a jury - and not simply if she felt like it either. I would hazard a guess that by contravening the law she may have rendered the findings 'unsafe'.

Comparison of the Coroners and Justice Act (2009, section 7) with the CPS treatment of the same information suggests that the latter might just have been a little too 'free', i.e. they do not make exactly the same kind of sense.

Bottom line - it may have well have been Mrs Mason's prerogative to dispense with a jury. Further inquiries are called for!

Thanks but that's one of the two sources which seem to be at odds. The CPS website treats the exceptions (i.e. those instances where a Jury is required) as wholly independent, whereas the Act seems to suggest that certain of them are contingent upon the deceased having been in custody, care or some kind of supervision (at work even).

Do take note of the headline: 'How Clement Freud raped me - and why I'm CERTAIN he knew what happened to Maddie.'

To be compared with: "I wouldn’t be at all surprised, when the police investigate Freud and his connections in Praia da Luz, if they find he knew something about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann."

Is there any known language in which the concept of certainty is expressed as 'I wouldn't be surprised'?

Question two: 'Vicky says she lost trust in men...Within three years she was married to Chris'

As the photo caption explains:

'Vicky was just 17 years old and a virgin when paedophile Freud forced himself on her after plying her with champagne. She is pictured here aged 19 with her husband in Trafalgar Square'

So she regained her trust in men and was married two years later.

During her visit to Newmarket with CF the lady was "so excited. I can remember what I was wearing: a lovely brown suede, three-quarter-length jacket with a leather collar, long brown leather boots and a tweed skirt."

An ensemble that bears a certain similarity to the outfit she is seen wearing in the photograph above-mentioned (a tweed skirt is of course the more demure option).

At the time of the incident she was "tight as a tick" (i.e. pissed as newt).

I was interrupted by the demands of 'pooch', there being comments outstanding:

As far as the lady herself is concerned, it seems to me we have an instance of 'on the bridge at midnight...' (verse 1), although she herself appears to have omitted line 3 of the stanza. To quote CF: "Why didn't you tell me you were a virgin?"

Why indeed. And being confronted by the old reprobate at the door, readying himself for a close encounter, what does she do - exclaim her virtue, cry mercy and usher him from the room with the threat of "We wouldn't want 'daddy' to find out"?

No. She gets into bed - sans nightie.

To judge from this article alone, CF's predilection for young females was expressed during a time in our history when he would have been viewed as sailing close to the wind but never quite against it, sixteen being the age of consent. It is also possible (I'll put it no stronger) that a sexually curious 17 yr. old female might have reasons of her own for not disclosing her 'innocence'.

CF may well have been guilty of taking advantage of young teenage 'gals' he knew through their parents, but that is not at all the same thing as abusing infants whose parents he did not know from Adam.

Rather more important than all of this is the question of who else, besides the McCanns, might stand to benefit from their exoneration?

Faced with an imminent situation of implicit guilt, via the Portuguese judiciary's support of Amaral's position (and therefore the findings of the initial investigation) we have the sudden re-emergence of 'paedophilia', which equates, of course, with 'abduction' and the McCanns' presumed innocence.

If the 'horrified' McCanns knew nothing of CF's sordid past then they cannot have been responsible for digging the dirt on him can they?

O.k. so maybe it wasn't verse 1 after all, but for the sake of clarity the verse in question concerned 'snowballs' (lol)

BTW 'firmly believe' is a Mitchellism (as in: Kate and Gerry firmly believe), a phrase that entered the McCann lexicon of sound bites early on (as in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7000409.stm).

I wonder if that offers a clue as to the origin of all this 'CF was a paedophile' hysteria, ably supported by those good old ladies who so want 'peace', 'closure' or whatever you might choose to call it that they simply cannot resist being interviewed by the MSM.

Interesting MR. It fits with my thoughts on this which I posted on the other thread a couple of days ago. I keep coming back to the might Gamble and how he ever came to be number one McCann Fann. His links with the Secret Service and the battlefield of the dark arts that was the conflict in N.Ireland just scratches away at me. Cyril Smith claimed to be protected(and was if stories are to be believed!)......so he twould most likely be an agent as could CF. would these agents be initiated and held to account with the threat of blackmail or agree to be sacrificial pawns in return for living the life they always had dreamt of? Hence in death they are used to clear up other people's mess?

Thanks for the pointers and my apologies to all and sundry for not keeping abreast of the general comments thread as I ought to have done.

Personally I'm not inclined, at this stage anyway, to suppose CF might have been a 'spook'. My reference to that earlier comment has rather more relevance to the SUN link you've identified, which I wasn't expecting exactly, although it does point in the anticipated direction.

Only at the very end of the piece is the reader given to understand that the pub's nickname (the Pig and Paedophile) derives from the sudden disappearance of the Landlord's son (wanted for questioning over indecent images) NOT on account of its being regularly frequented by a hoard of raving perverts, Freud and Robert Murat among them according to the 'slant' of the article (a deliberate misdirection IMO)

I need to read up on the specifics of the first of the allegations made against CF but my instincts tell me that the Vicky Haynes addendum, with its link to the McCanns, is contrived. Hearking back to that off-the-cuff 24 May comment of mine, it is just the sort of speculative association that might be, shall we say, negotiated with current family members of the deceased.

In any event I do not believe the purpose of all this is to 'fit up' CF so much as to reinforce, in the public mind, the idea that paedophilia was the motive for Madeleine McCann's 'abduction'.

Those engineering this charade are more concerned to influence the tabloid readers than the very much smaller population who have been following the case more closely.

The MSM will publish pictures of a very much younger CF than the octogenarian who, it is said, interacted with the McCanns, so SUN readers and the like may well draw the conclusion: CF = Paedo. CF knew about the McCanns. MM abducted by (or on the instructions of) a Paedo. CF therefore guilty of involvement.

CF's reputation thus becomes collateral damage - guilty by association, but not, methinks, without a certain preparation of the ground in anticipation.

"As the landlord of The Pigs Head I can categorically state that this article is factually ridiculous. When asked if Clement Freud had been a regular in the pub I told them he had been here once at least 20 years ago. Further when asked about Robert Murat I told them he had also been in here once about 8years ago.How they then manage to connect the two of them is another piece of nonsense. As the next question asked was did I know Robert to which I said we were on nodding terms, which when you consider we have lived about 2 miles apart for 30 years is fairly normal.The fact that they then tack on a re hashed story from many years ago just makes the article confusing and misleading .The two bars and two stories are not connected in any way as I suspect nether were Freud and Murat. This type of irresponsible journalism can do no good what so ever for anyone. Heavan only knows what kind of feeding frenzy will be unleashed next year on the tenth anniversary. Yours in total honestly Robert Mark Hurst, proprietor of The Pigs Head pub mentioned in this article."

...Gerry says: “We do need to be pro-active. The initiative online that the Prime Minister announced the other day is fine, but it’s a small step. I’m not an expert, but clearly there is an association between people who access child porn and go on to abuse children, and that needs to be taken seriously.

“We are moving in the right direction but there is a long way to go.”

Seriously?

“There’s not a day goes by when we don’t think about Madeleine, miss her in some way, and obviously wonder where she is and what’s happened to her.

“We kinda have that all the time, but we’ve sort of adapted in many ways, and life seems pretty normal most of the time.

It hadn't crossed my mind previously, but writing in a fashion designed deliberately to mislead takes a certain skill. It is as evident in 'the bewk' as in Lazzeri's latest confection and, being common to both oeuvres, is probably common to a single author rather than two connected, yet unrelated, individuals with completely different professional backgrounds.

Unfortunately I cannot access the comments myself for some reason. Would it be possible for you to communicate the timing of Robert Hurst's remarks in relation to this SUN article (which appeared on-line Saturday evening 18 June)?

So we have Hurst commenting on the Sunday following the article's appearance the day before.

The CF story broke last Tuesday night. In-between someone had to visit the Pig's Head, interview Hurst, construct and submit the story, which was not the product of sloppy journalism by any means, but well thought out and carefully constructed, not a 'five minute job' at all.

Hurst refers to his interview by 'them' in the past tense. Exactly how long in the past would be an interesting question to put to him, given the chain of events required to publish, as would the identities of his interviewers, or at least their affiliation, whether to the Murdoch press or otherwise (the Mark Warner organisation perhaps, which would make it all the more interesting).

Q: Were people despatched to Portugal in a hurry immediately after the news broke on the Tuesday night, or were their bags already packed by then? Or were the 'facts' gathered by persons already in PdL and passed just as quickly to the SUN news desk? (the article in question was credited to Antonella Lazzeri, NOT Antonella Lazzeri in Praia da Luz).

First we have Tuesday's 'breaking news' with Vicky Haynes lamenting the loss of her virginity - at 17 - to Clement Freud, and spuriously annexing a connection to the McCann case.

This is followed by Antonella Lazzeri spreading 'paedo' accusations left, right and centre in Saturday's SUN and quoting PdL pub landlord Robert Hurst directly on a number of issues linking Freud with paedophilia in general, Robert Murat in particular.

But Hurst has since explained that he was not interviewed so much as questioned a tad by 'two blokes' (neither of whom would have resembled Antonella one assumes).

Are these two holiday makers, or ex-pats, who have just wandered in after watching SKY News. They weren't SUN reporters or they'd have written the article themselves, whereas it was carefully crafted and credited to Antonella (in London no doubt).

Hurst hasn't said anything about this pair taking notes. And they have a through route to the SUN Newsdesk? (How else did Antonella come by the information she needed?)

These two locals were clearly sent in to reconnoitre the situation by someone with a vested interest in consolidating the Freud + paedophilia + 'it was an abductor wot dun it' story.

Are we to suppose the 'reach' of TM extends to recruiting pathfinders in Portugal at a moment's notice?

Spontaneous journalism my eye. This has more than a whiff of a co-ordinated attack about it.

"As the next question asked was did I know Robert to which I said we were on nodding terms, which when you consider we have lived about 2 miles apart for 30 years is fairly normal" (Robert Hurst - Landlord of the Pig's Head)

2 MILES APART = Luz - Burgau no doubt.

And after 20+ years I'm not even on nodding terms with people across the road!

Thank you once again. I may have some news of my own to contribute in a little while - fingers crossed.

In the meantime, and putting oneself in the position of someone in or arriving at PdL on a journalistic 'mission', where does one begin to identify those pubs/restaurants/supermarkets CF might have visited, and why? What 'news' is to be made of that?

It only becomes vaguely relevant once the 'paedo' implication and/or a connection with RM is introduced, but it would take a fair amount of questioning at any number of locales before one or other association, however tenuous, might be turned up. Unless of course one were given a clue or two beforehand.

Followers

Contributors

The Gor Blimey Hall of Fame

We aren’t writing about the investigations into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann or any possible suspects: we don’t want to prejudice a legal process that is working in a most satisfactory way. - John Blacksmith

Read the Summers and Swan book if you want an impartial intelligent insight. It debunks conspiracy theorists amateur analysis - Jim Gamble

"I have seen no basis at any stage for challenging the integrity of the police."

Lord Justice Leveson - The Leveson Inquiry

We never take for granted the continued support and trust which Londoners feel for their Met.Bernard Hogan-Howe

Bush told reporters that “One day, people will look back at this moment in history and say, ‘Thank God there were courageous people willing to serve, because they laid the foundations for peace for generations to come.’

George W Bush on Iraq 2008

"It is sad that we live in a time when a talented and honourable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons," Bush said in Crawford, Texas.

''The effects of radiation do not come to people that are happy and laughing. They come to people that are weak-spirited, that brood and fret.''

“I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.”

Bush interview 60 Minutes 1/14/07

“All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.” – John Hagee

''Once Iraq becomes a very rich and prosperous country... we would hope that some consideration be given to repaying the United States some of the mega-dollars that we have spent here in the last eight years.

We were hoping that there would be a consideration of a payback because the United States right now is in close to a very serious economic crisis and we could certainly use some people to care about our situation as we have cared about theirs.''

Dana Rohrabacher (R) June 2011

''It's not natural for animals to eat each other, they have taken on the nature of Satan. What is natural for animals is to live in the way they were created in the Garden of Eden.''